Take this in good faith, as a person who is attempting to make a marxist analysis of anti-imperalism. What sort of analysis distinguishes this claim from settler colonies? Is it about what sort of reason/goals/sorts of actions there were which resulted in Russians being a majority in Crimea/Donbas? Your justification here can be applied to both, and justify support of Israelis, as the most common current example
It should be noted that there was more to the debate between Lenin and Luxembourg in terms of Marxist theory itself, though I don't quite understand what the disagreement was.
did Russian speakers displace the locals? I'm not that familiar with this history - it's a genuine question. if they've been there awhile, it's kind of obvious how this differs from settler-colonialism - before the advent of nation states, it was pretty common for regions bordering a major power to speak the language of that power. people used to be a lot more free to move around and borders were largely theoretical.
And modern languages only standardized fairly recently, like within the last 100-200 years. I think this is especially true with the USSR, which did a lot of language standardization in the 1920s so you could do widespread education.
No, the territory was in the hands of several nomadic tribes and then the Tatar Khanate of Krim, although there was a small slavic/greek/italian presence for a long time. After Muscovy conquered large parts of Ukraine from Lithuania (who claimed it as the new Kievan Rus) and later Poland, a process under Tsarina Elizabeth I saw the joint settlement by Russians, Ukrainians and several other European ethnic groups (germans, french, serbians) of the underpopulated lands back then known as the Wild Fields. The identity of modern Ukraine was not a unified project but a regional identity similar to Novgorod or Pskov. Ukrainian nationalism began when Poland and later Austria forced the orthodox population of western Ukraine to reconnect with the papacy and bind them to the state, the population was however still pro-russian before WWI.
Take this in good faith, as a person who is attempting to make a marxist analysis of anti-imperalism. What sort of analysis distinguishes this claim from settler colonies? Is it about what sort of reason/goals/sorts of actions there were which resulted in Russians being a majority in Crimea/Donbas? Your justification here can be applied to both, and justify support of Israelis, as the most common current example
deleted by creator
It should be noted that there was more to the debate between Lenin and Luxembourg in terms of Marxist theory itself, though I don't quite understand what the disagreement was.
did Russian speakers displace the locals? I'm not that familiar with this history - it's a genuine question. if they've been there awhile, it's kind of obvious how this differs from settler-colonialism - before the advent of nation states, it was pretty common for regions bordering a major power to speak the language of that power. people used to be a lot more free to move around and borders were largely theoretical.
And modern languages only standardized fairly recently, like within the last 100-200 years. I think this is especially true with the USSR, which did a lot of language standardization in the 1920s so you could do widespread education.
No, the territory was in the hands of several nomadic tribes and then the Tatar Khanate of Krim, although there was a small slavic/greek/italian presence for a long time. After Muscovy conquered large parts of Ukraine from Lithuania (who claimed it as the new Kievan Rus) and later Poland, a process under Tsarina Elizabeth I saw the joint settlement by Russians, Ukrainians and several other European ethnic groups (germans, french, serbians) of the underpopulated lands back then known as the Wild Fields. The identity of modern Ukraine was not a unified project but a regional identity similar to Novgorod or Pskov. Ukrainian nationalism began when Poland and later Austria forced the orthodox population of western Ukraine to reconnect with the papacy and bind them to the state, the population was however still pro-russian before WWI.
deleted by creator